Sibel Edmonds: In Congress We Trust...NOT

The former FBI translator and whistleblower suggests blackmail may be at the heart of Congressional refusal to bring accountability and oversight to its own members - such as both Hastert and Harman - in matters of espionage and national security


Exclusive to The BRAD BLOG...
Guest Editorial by Sibel Edmonds

I have been known to quote long-dead men in my past writings. Whether eloquently expressed thoughts by our founding fathers, or those artfully expressed by ancient Greek thinkers, these quotes have always done a better job starting or ending my thoughts - that tend to be expressed in long winding sentences. For this piece I am going to break with tradition and start with an appropriate quote from a living current senator, John Kerry: "It's a sad day when you have members of Congress who are literally criminals go undisciplined by their colleagues. No wonder people look at Washington and know this city is broken."

The people do indeed look at Washington and know that this city is 'badly' broken, Senator Kerry. The public confidence in our Congress has been declining drastically. Recent poll results highlight how the American people's trust in their Congress has hit rock bottom. A survey of progressive blogs easily confirms the rage rightfully directed at our Congress for abdicating its role of oversight and accountability. Activists scream about promised hearings that never took place - without explanation. They express outrage when investigations are dropped without any justification. And they genuinely wonder out loud why, especially after they helped secure a major victory for the Democrats. The same Democrats who had for years pointed fingers at their big bad Republican majority colleagues as the main impediment preventing them from fulfilling what was expected of them.

The recent stunning but not unexpected revelations regarding Jane Harman (D-CA) by the Congressional Quarterly provide us with a little glimpse into one of the main reasons behind the steady decline in the integrity of Congress. But the story is almost dead - ready to bite the dust, thanks to our mainstream media's insistence on burying 'real' issues or stories that delve deep into the causes of our nation's continuous downward slide. In this particular case, the 'thank you' should also be extended to certain blogosphere propagandists who, blinded by their partisanship, myopic in their assessments, and ignorant in their knowledge of the inner workings of our late Congress and intelligence agencies, helped in the post-burial cremation of this case.

Ironically but understandably, the Harman case has become one of rare unequivocal bipartisanship, when no one from either side of the partisan isle utters a word. How many House or Senate Republicans have you heard screaming, or even better, calling for an investigation? The right wing remains silent. Some may have their hand, directly or indirectly, in the same AIPAC cookie jar. Others may still feel the heavy baggage of their own party's tainted colleagues; after all, they have had their share of Abramoffs, Hasterts and the like, silently lurking in the background, albeit dimmer every day. Some on the left, after an initial silence that easily could have been mistaken for shock, are jumping from one foot to the other, like a cat on a hot tin roof, making one excuse after another; playing the 'victims of Executive Branch eavesdropping' card, the same very 'evil doing' they happened to support vehemently. Some have been dialing their trusted guardian angels within the mainstream media and certain fairly visible alternative outlets. They need no longer worry, since these guardian angels seem to have blacked out the story, and have done so without the apparent need for much arm twisting...

Hastert Redux
I am going to rewind and take you back to September 2005, when Vanity Fair published an article, which, in addition to my case and the plight of National Security Whistleblowers, exposed the dark side of the then Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert (R-IL), and the corroborated allegations of his illegal activities involving foreign agents and interests.

Vanity Fair printed the story only after they made certain they were on sure footing in the face of any possible libel by lining up more than five credible sources, and after triple pit-bull style fact-checking. They were vindicated; Hastert did not dare go after them, nor did he ever issue any true denial. Moreover, further vindication occurred only a month ago. On April 10, 2009, The Hill reported that the Former Speaker of the House was contracted to lobby for Turkey. The Justice Department record on this deal indicates that Hastert will now be "principally involved" on a $35,000-a-month contract providing representation for Turkish interests. That seems to be the current arrangement for those serving foreign interests while on the job in Congress --- to be paid at a later date, collecting on their IOU's when they secure their positions with 'the foreign lobby.'

In a recent article for American Conservative Magazine, Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer stationed in Turkey, made the following point: "Edmonds's claims have never been pursued, presumably because there are so many skeletons in both parties' closets. She has been served with a state-secrets gag order to make sure that what she knows is never revealed, a restriction that the new regime in Washington has not lifted."

And then, he hits the nail on its head: "In Hastert's case, it certainly should be a matter of public concern that a senior elected representative who may have received money from a foreign country is now officially lobbying on its behalf. How many other congressmen might have similar relationships with foreign countries and lobbying groups, providing them with golden parachutes for their retirement?"

Congress went mum on my case after the Vanity Fair story, with, of course, the mainstream media making it very easy for them. They turned bipartisan in not pursuing the case, with the same zeal as they have, so far, not pursued the Harman case. Similarly, the mainstream media is happily letting it all disappear.

I was not aware that during the publication of the Hastert story in Vanity Fair, Jane Harman's AIPAC case was already brewing in the background. Moreover, one of the very few people in Congress who was notified about Harman was none other than Hastert --- the man himself. The same Hastert, who in addition to being one of several high-ranking officials targeted by FBI counterintelligence and counterespionage investigations, was also known to be directly involved in several other high profile scandals: from his intimate involvement in the Abramoff scandal, to the Rep. William Jefferson scandal; from his 'Land Deal' scandal - where he cashed in millions off his position while "serving", to the 2006 House Page scandal.

All for One, One for All?
How does it work? How do these people escape the consequences of accountability? Are we talking about the possible use of blackmail by the Executive Branch against Congressional representatives, as if the days of J. Edgar Hoover were never over? Cases such as NSA illegal eavesdropping come to mind, when Congressional members were briefed long before it became public, yet none took any action or even uttered a word; members of both parties. Or is it more likely to be a case of secondhand blackmail, where members of Congress watch out for each other? Or, is it a combination of the above? Regardless, we see this 'all for one, one for all' kind of solidarity in Congress when it comes to criminal conduct and scandals such as those of Hastert and Harman.

Although at an initial glance, based on the wiretapping angle, the Harman case may appear to involve blackmailing --- or a milder version, exploitation of Congress by the Executive Branch --- deeper analysis would suggest even further implications, where Congressional members themselves use the incriminating information against each other to prevent pursuit or investigation of cases that they may be directly or indirectly involved in. Let me give you an example based on the Hastert case mentioned earlier:

In 2004 and 2005 I had several meetings with Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) investigative and legal staff. Two of these meetings took place inside a high-security SCIF, where details and classified information pertaining to my case and those involved could be discussed.

I was told, and at the time I believed it to be the case, that the Republican majority was preventing further action - such as holding a public hearing on my whistleblower revelations. Once the Democrats took over in 2006, that barrier was removed, or so I thought.

In March 2007, I was contacted by one of Rep. Waxman's staff people who felt responsible and conscientious enough to at least let me know that there would never be a hearing into my case by their office, or for that matter, any Democratic office in the House. Based on his/her account, in February 2007 Waxman's office was preparing the necessary ingredients for their promised hearing, but in mid-March the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called Waxman into a meeting on the case, and after Waxman came out of that twenty-minute meeting, he told his staff 'we are no longer involved in Edmonds' case.' And so they became 'uninvolved.'

What was discussed during that meeting? The facts regarding the FBI's pursuit of Hastert, and certain other representatives, were bound to come out in any Congressional hearing into my case. Now we know that Hastert and Pelosi were both informed of Harman's role in a related case involving counterespionage investigation of AIPAC. Is it possible that Pelosi asked Waxman to lay off my case in order to protect a few of their own in an equally scandalous case? Was there a deal made between the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House to keep this and other related scandals hushed? Will we ever know the answer to these questions? Most likely not, considering the current state of our mainstream media.

And the victims remain the same: The American people who have entrusted their Congress with the role of ensuring oversight and accountability.

This kind of infestation touches everyone in Congress; one need not have a skeleton of his own to get sucked into the swamp of those infested. Does Waxman have to be a sinner to take part in the sin committed by the Hasterts and Harmans of Congress? Certainly not. On the other hand, he and others like him will abide by the un-pledged oath of 'solidarity with your party members' and 'loyalty to your dear colleagues.'

Rotten at its Core
Back to the enablers: How can we explain the continued blackout by the mainstream media, and/or, the logic-free defenses of the Harmans and Hasterts alike by the apologist spinners --- some of whom pass as the 'alternative' media? Some are committing what they rightfully accused the previous administration and their pawns of doing: cherry picking the facts, then, spin, spin, and spin until the real issue becomes blurry and unrecognizable. The conspiracy angle aimed at the timing; Porter Goss' possible beef with Jane Harman; accusing the truth divulgers, CQ sources, of being 'conspirators' with ulterior motives; portraying Harman as an outspoken vigilante on torture. And if those sound too lame to swallow, they throw in a few evil names from the foggy past of Dusty the Foggo man! If the issue and its implications weren't so serious, these spins of reality would certainly make a Pulitzer-worthy satire.

Let's take the issue of timing. First of all, the story was reported, albeit not comprehensively, by TIME magazine years ago. It took a tenacious journalist, more importantly a journalist that could have been trusted by the Intel sources to give it real coverage. It is also possible that the sources who leaked in the Harman case got fed up and disillusioned by the absence of a real investigation and decided to 'really' talk. After all, the AIPAC espionage case was dropped by the Justice Department's prosecutors within two weeks of the Harman revelations.

Same could be said about the Hastert story. At the time, many asked why the story was not told during the earlier stages of my case. It took three years for me and other FBI and DOJ sources to exhaust all channels; Congressional inquiry, IG investigation, and the courts. Those who initially were not willing to come forward and corroborate the details opened up to the Vanity Fair journalist, David Rose, in 2005.

We all can picture one of the President's men in the White House pulling an opposing Congressional member aside and whispering 'if I were you, Congressman, I'd stop pushing. I understand, as we speak, my Justice Department is looking into certain activities you've been engaged in.'
Now let's look at the 'blackmail' and 'Goss Plot' angles. Of course the 'blackmail' scenario is possible; in fact, highly possible. We all can picture one of the President's men in the White House pulling an opposing Congressional member aside and whispering 'if I were you, Congressman, I'd stop pushing. I understand, as we speak, my Justice Department is looking into certain activities you've been engaged in.'

We all can imagine, easily, a high-ranking Justice Department official having a 'discreet' meeting with a member of Congress who's been pushing for a certain investigation of certain department officials for criminal deeds, and saying, 'dear Congresswoman, we are aware of your role in a certain scandal, and are still pondering whether we should turn this into a direct investigation of you and appoint a special prosecutor…'

But, let's not forget, the misuse of incriminating information, for the purpose of blackmail, does not turn the practitioner of the wrongful deed into a victim, nor does it make the wrongful criminal deed less wrong. Instead of spinning the story, taking away attention from the facts in hand, and making Harman a victim, we must focus on this case, on Harman, as an example of a very serious disease that has infected our Congress for far too long. Those who have been entrusted with the oversight and accountability of our government cannot do so if they are vulnerable to such blackmail from the very same people they are overseeing…Period.

Those who have been elected to represent the people and their interests cannot pursue their own greed and ambitions by engaging in criminal or unethical activities against the interests of the same people they've sworn to represent, and then be given a pass.

As for far-reaching ties such as Harman's stand on torture, or a specific beef with former CIA Director Porter Goss, or wild shots from the hip in bringing up mafia-like characters such as Dusty Foggo; please don't make us laugh! Are we talking about the same Hawkish Pro-Secrecy Jane Harman here?! Harman's staunch support of NSA Wiretapping of Americans, the FISA Amendment of 2008, the Patriot ACT, the War on Iraq, and many other activities on the Civil Liberties' No-No list, is widely recognized by almost everyone, apparently, but the authors of the recent apologist spin.

And, let's not forget to add her own long-term cozy relationship with AIPAC, and the large donations she's received from various other AIPAC-related pro-Israeli PACs. To these certain 'wannabe' journalists, driven by far from pure agenda(s), shame on you; as for honor-worthy vigilant activists out there: watch out for these impostors with their newly gained popularity among those tainted in Washington, and take a hard look at whose agendas they are serving as a mouthpiece for.

Despite a certain degree of exposure, cases such as Harman's and Hastert's, involving corruption of public officials, seem to meet the same dead-end. Criminal conduct, by powerful foreign entities, against our national interest, is given a pass, as was recently proven by the abandonment of the AIPAC spy case. The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of blackout by our mainstream media seem now to have been almost universally accepted as a fact of life.

Pursuit of cases such as mine, via cosmetically available channels, has been, and continues to be proven futile for whistleblowers.

Therefore, you may want to ask, why in the world am I writing this piece? Because more and more people --- although not nearly enough --- are coming to the realization that our system is rotten at it's core; that in many cases we have been trying to deal with the symptoms rather than the cause.

I, like many others, believed that changing the Congressional majority in 2006 was going to bring about some of the needed changes; the pursuit of accountability being one. We were proven wrong. In 2008, many genuinely bought in to the promise of change, and thus far, they've been let down.

These experiences are disheartening, surely, but they are also eye-opening. I do see many vigilant activists who continue the fight. As long as that's the case, there is hope. More people realize that real change will require not replacing one or two or three, but many more. More people are coming to understand that the road to achieving government of the people passes through a Congress, but not the one currently occupied by the many crusty charlatans who represent only self-interest --- achieved by representing the interests of the few, rather than the majority of the people of this nation. And so I write.

Here I go again, rather than ending this in a long paragraph or two, I will let another long-gone man do it shortly and effectively: "If we have Senators and Congressmen there that can't protect themselves against the evil temptations of lobbyists, we don't need to change our lobbies, we need to change our representatives." - Will Rogers


Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and noted whistleblower who has been under a years-long "gag order", prohibiting her from discussing many details of her allegations of corruption and espionage gleaned during her time at the FBI, due to the continuing "States Secrets privilege" assertions by the Executive Branch. Her own story has been partially documented over the last several years in several different media outlets, including a lead story on CBS' 60 Minutes, a detailed feature in Vanity Fair and, over the years, in a number of exclusive articles here at The BRAD BLOG. She is the Founder and President of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.


Isn't on the front page because of why?

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Excellent assessment of what the real problem is. Great Post!

I have so much respect for Sibel Edmonds and this article adds to that respect. She has nailed what the problem is. There are scumbags like Harmon throughout the US government. They are all so dirty that they are unwilling to pursue justice because of the potential "blowback" of their being exposed for their criminal acts. It is a sick system which is rotten to the core.

I believe John Conyers is one of those who has been ineffective because he has skeletons which would be exposed if he were to really go after the Bush Crime Cabal's numerous and egregious crimes.

I also think this is an important article that deserves priority. It is an essential piece to the puzzle of why there has been no real justice.

Thanks for the post Jon.

I appreciate your contributions here on blogger and think it would be a damn shame if you stopped contributing.

I am with you Rob! Sibel has "Juevos".

"It is you who are the torch-bearers with respect to that truth.... ...Steel your spines. Inspire your children. Then when the moment is right, rise again...." W PEPPER

When I first saw this article..

It was the 2nd story on the front page.

Rep does a great job running the site and he has now enlisted others to assist.

I put up a Barry Jennings Obituary the other day. I thought I had found the "Holy Grail". It never made the news side. It was parked on the blog side only.

I understood. There happened to be a whole bunch of important stories and events that came out at the same time. I later discovered that this Barry Jennings obituary had been discovered before. I saw it up on Infowars and one other site. It wasn't in their news sections. It was in the comments. The newsletter was probably posted in October. They (the other people on the other sites) had posted a link to it back in February of this year. So, as I said, it made me feel like Columbus thinking he discovered America, when there were people (indigenous) already here for thousands of years.

I would have to say that the Barry Jennings story intrigues me and is given higher priority in my head than it is in the overall 911 Truth movement. I think we all have our "most important" lists which may differ, but we are all on the same team wanting the same outcome.

This is...

My last blog post to 911blogger. This isn't the Controlled Demolition Movement, and yet every other post is about exactly that. The "message" of no longer matches my own. I have asked repeatedly to be taken off moderated comments, and have been ignored. I co-founded this site with dz, and generated the content that built this site's popularity, and now I am ignored. I am done.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Don't stop...

Jon. We need you here. We all need to stay strong. We are all humans. Your input and submissions are valuable to the site. I better not see you stop posting submission like this one from Brad Blog and putting your 50 Fact List out which is one of the most comprehensive compilations I've seen and saved.


Jon, please stay on Blogger. Your contributions are important.

Please stay. I don't know

Please stay. I don't know who is running the site now but they should certainly respect the wishes of one of the co-founders. This is by far the best site for 9/11 news, and you are one of the top contributors. If you left, this site, and the movement by extension, would be hurt.

I think 911blogger does a fine job & Jon, I like your posts.

Personally, I see a wonderful spectrum of information come across 911blogger. Running 911blogger is no easy task. I would hate to attempt it.
I know that many people also check the blogs which do not make it to the front page. I have come here daily (for years) to stay informed on current 9/11 Truth related stories. I want to know a lot about Controlled Demoliton; I want to know about Barry Jennings; I want to know about Sibel; I want to know about the First Responders; I want to know about AE911Truth; I want to know about the Thermitic dust; I want to stay abreast of the whole Movement.

Jon, you have some fantastic articles at times...but like other articles, I don't always read everything that you post. I hate to see people in the Movement have a rift, because we all share the common bond of trying to expose what has not been well-revealed by the media. Jon, you may be pissed at me for saying the previous things...but that is okay -- I still like you and your stand for truth.

Yes. Please Stay

Jon: Although I just started commenting here a few days ago, I have read from 911 Blogger for quite a while. Your contributions have been excellent, and the site is better with your input. The Controlled Demolition hypothesis has so much evidence supporting it now, that it is due to take center stage a lot of the time--it provides a crucial entryway into the very heart of the matter, and may be the Rosetta Stone (to use that phrase very loosely) to begin revealing the as-yet hidden truths involving 9/11. But the full spectrum of information is necessary. Today, when I googled 911 Blogger, I was glad to see the post about Sibel Edmonds. Without you, the Rosetta Stone will be somewhat effaced. Please stay around.

Good comment

Jon...I just don't get it?

...should this be said like this in public?

Do you want win or wine?

Disappointed (:

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

My emails...

Were being ignored at the time John.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Brad Blog.

Brad Friedman of Brad Blog is a consistent and hard hitting journalist who focuses mostly on Election Integrity issues. I'm glad to see he is covering Sibel Edmonds as well. Thanks for posting this Jon. Great post.

You can contact him at, See his reddit submissions here:

And post comments on his site:

Spread the news. Be the media.


Your contributions to the 9/11 truth movement and 911blogger in particular are astounding. Your input is invaluable and necessary to furthering the cause of truth and accountability. However, Ive seen nobody claim that 911blogger is the alter for the Church of Controlled Demolition.

Unfortunately for the crowd you represent, the latest and greatest information concerning 9/11 truth has been the recent paper by Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, et al. Of course this is going to generate a lot of discussion on the subject on controlled demolition. In addition to the new paper, AE911 Truth has recently made a big splash at the AIA convention in San Fransisco. Once again, this is going to generate a lot of discussion on controlled demolition.

I dont think that you should take it as a personal insult that your blog was not placed on the front page the second it was submitted. I personally find the information on Sibel Edmonds to be particularly important to promoting the truth of 9/11. I also adhere to arguments concerning the fact of controlled demolition.

These facts are not mutually exclusive, and anyone in the truth movement should be promoting the fact of war games, insider trading, Cheney's connection to PROMIS (which doesnt get NEARLY the amount of attention that first responders and Sibel Edmonds gets), ALONGSIDE of controlled demolition. I understand your frustration that certain topics arent taking center stage.

Here's the rub: there are countless members of the truth movement that Id love to have nothing to do with. I find many to be rude, unsympathetic, egotistic, and countless other adjectives. But the fact of the matter is, I must stand shoulder to shoulder with them until we have truth, accountability and justice. Thats just a part of life.

I know you to be dedicated. I know that you have done so much for us. I know that you have cried tears of pain for the people that have experienced painful and permanent loss due to the failures of our elected leaders. This is why we need you to stay.

Lets end the dramatics, lets stop running in the same circles, and lets get things done. In 2007, you said this:

"Ive decided This is my last post on If you want me, I'm available at my site, Or, you can contact me through email."

But something changed your mind, and you continued to stay with us. I ask now that you reach inside yourself and channel your frustration into something inspiring and real. And stay.


“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
Dont preach it, just mention it :)

Sibel Edmonds is an American Hero profiles- 1 patriot, and 3 traitors

Profile: Sibel Edmonds

Profile: Dennis Hastert

Profile: Jane Harman

Profile: Henry A. Waxman

This is on the front page now- I, too, am curious why it wasn't front-paged in the first place- it doesn't deal with 9/11? It's "opinion"? The electric politics interview was front-paged. I don't know, but I'm glad to see someone on the 911blogger editorial staff moved it. It's big news all over the web.

Jon, in light of the article's status change, I hope you'll reconsider your decision, and keep submitting material- your contributions have helped make this site one of the better 9/11 news/opinion/activism sites.

Sibel on 9/11

It may be politically incorrect to criticize Sibel, but I find it strange that she quotes John Kerry, the enabler of the Bush administration and fellow Skull and Bones member who refused to challenge Ohio. Also, Sibel's past 9/11 story is about warning gov officials about corrupt Congress members, Turkish drug deals and Middle East terror threats but that wasn't what 9/11 was about and Sibel never makes any mention that the so called terrorists were in the end just patsies. Now it's been proven scientifically that the WTC was a demolition job with military grade explosives. While Sibel's current post is excellent, I'd appreciate it if she updated her story on 9/11.

From January 6. 2008 Times Online UK

""Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks.

Edmonds said the State Department official once again proved useful. “A primary target would call the official and point to names on the list and say, ‘We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans’,” she said. “The official said that he would ‘take care of it’.”

The four suspects on the list were released from interrogation and extradited.

Edmonds also claims that a number of senior officials in the Pentagon had helped Israeli and Turkish agents.

“The people provided lists of potential moles from Pentagon-related institutions who had access to databases concerning this information,” she said.

“The handlers, who were part of the diplomatic community, would then try to recruit those people to become moles for the network. The lists contained all their ‘hooking points’, which could be financial or sexual pressure points, their exact job in the Pentagon and what stuff they had access to.”

One of the Pentagon figures under investigation was Lawrence Franklin, a former Pentagon analyst, who was jailed in 2006 for passing US defence information to lobbyists and sharing classified information with an Israeli diplomat.""

read the entire article here:

The senior state department official she was referring to is Marc Grossman, who now works for the Cohen Group.

Kerry: "The culture of corruption"

Kerry quote context:

“The culture of corruption is out of control when Washington Republicans haven’t lifted a finger to investigate Members of Congress’ ties with Jack Abramoff and when Duke Cunningham was convicted without so much as a sanction from the House,” Kerry said. “It’s a sad day when you have members of Congress who are literally criminals go undisciplined by their colleagues. No wonder people look at Washington and know this city is broken.”

I've been following Edmonds' case for a few years. I'd be surprised if she was unaware of the source and context of the Kerry quote; March 06, criticizing Republicans for corruption, before the Dems won control in 06. As her article takes 2 Dems to task- 1 for alleged corruption, and the other for breaking his word and failing to investigate corruption which on the face of it mainly implicated Rethugs- but when Waxman talked to Pelosi, he dropped the issue like a hot potato- I doubt the irony is lost on her that "count all the votes" Kerry who rolled over for Bush in 04, is making a statement like this. If a liar tells the truth, it doesn't make it stop being true.

Sibel Edmonds is a witness to a number of crimes, and she has been speaking out about what she's a witness to, after being intimidated, harassed, threatened, including with death, fired and made "the most gagged person in US history." She spoken out and published hundreds of times, to influential people and in public, sometimes directly and sometimes creatively (see her "state secrets privilege gallery", still the top link in bold at where she "names names" in pictures- posted at the same time as the London Sunday Times series broke, that Rob linked) in various forums and media, since 2002.

Personally, I think her remaining focused on what she was a witness to- and not going beyond what she knows- plus her tireless, dogged attempts to get a hearing and raise public awareness about these things, while continuously calling attention to Congress and the Executive's spineless/criminal actions in refusing her a full public hearing and the courts essentially upholding the gag orders she's under due to a spurious claim of "state secrets" and "national security" (her date of birth? Come on!) all the way to the SCOTUS- and her other case is STILL pending- i think all that adds to her credibility as a witness. I don't see how it detracts from her credibility that she's not speaking out about anything else. The corruption that led to 9/11 and has made the cover up so widespread in Congress and the media is way bigger than just the events of the day- it's certainly related to why Waxman's scared to hold a hearing into her very serious allegations- which were essentially confirmed by Grassley, Leahy and the DOJ IG, as much as they looked into it.

She has publicly testified to numerous incidents that blow holes in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory- I think only foreign media really gave them any coverage- hardly anything came out in her 60 minutes appearance in 2002, where Grassley appeared, calling her "very credible" and saying the FBI "needs to be turned upside down" (he's shut up, too). If you're not that familiar with her case, i'd read her profile at the link above, explore and this is a short, sparse primer I wrote as an informative speech for a class, with 2 lengthy lists of source links at the end:

Sibel Edmonds vs. the Nuclear Terrorists By Erik Larson

Ok. Thank you.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?